Interview With Daygamer Nick Krauser

Regular readers who follow my (admittedly, attenuated) take on the PUA scene know that I consider Krauser to be one of the few bona fide pickup artists out there. It’s why I have his blog linked on the right under “Game”.

Krauser adheres to an “indirect-direct” daytime approach style that suits my personality well, so I’m perhaps a bit partial in my praise. Daygamers who use different approach techniques shouldn’t feel put off; remember, the core concepts behind most of the game styles are essentially the same, with the exceptions being the distinctions inherent in day vs night game, club vs everywhere else game, and native vs foreign game. Even those exceptions, as stark as their differences may seem to newbies, share a lot of critical game principles. Female hypergamy — the cosmic force that underpins much of the game technology geared to leveraging it in a man’s favor — is a universal phenomenon, after all. So if I praise one PUA school of thought you can consider it tangential praise of other PUA schools of thought.

This is not to say there don’t exist shysters out there whose sole intent is to make a buck off the woes of desperate losers in love. But Krauser (and a few others) strike me as the real deal, so I don’t have a problem promoting them. In that vein, here’s a trailer to an interview of Krauser by a group called London Real.

The full one-hour interview is here.

Also, as I’ve said before whenever I feature a PUA or a game instructor, if any reader has real life experience learning from or hanging out with these guys, whether those experiences are good or bad, feel free to discuss it in the comments, or email me for a possible future post. Don’t bother trolling. I have expert-level skills at sniffing out trolls and petty haters.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.'”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

Read Full Post »

Alpha Assessment: The Name Game

Reader Aureo wants to know if this conversation he had with a girl he likes has cleared or obstructed the path to sex with her.

I want to bang this girl [ed: don’t we all!], but she just got a boyfriend so the antislut shields are up. Yet I know she likes me, so it’s only a matter of good logistics.

I once forgot her name and called her something else, and since then, every time we see each other, we make up a different (and normally dramatic) name, and laugh.

This is a conversation we just had, in which she subtly shoved me off:

Me: Danielle Marie Delacroix! (fake names we say)
Her: Mr. Alexander von Luparius the Third!
Me: *long weird name*
Her: Yeah, but you can call me Diane (her real name) ^^
Me: I don’t like that name that much ^^
H: ¬¬ i suppose we must do something about it, they dont call me “hard fists” for anything!
M: Ill beat you up like no one has!
H: haha I was just telling you mi nickname, as a curious fact.. haha
M: ok ok, I thought you were threatening me, still our issue remains.
H: we can talk it, we can spare some lives, some broken bones and stuff.
M: not to mention a few destroyed building and a public riot. Anyway, how do you like to be called?
H: haha elementary my dear Watson: Diane, and you? how do you like to be called?
M: so I lived deceived ALL this time?
H: yeah, all this time, but yes, sorry cowboy
M: It’ll be time to make up names for another person, then.
H: do you remember how all this came up?
M: yeah, I called you Valerie or something.
H: yes
M: so?
H: so nothing
M: so nothing what

then the conversation died.
how did I do?

You didn’t specify, but I’ll assume this was a face-to-face, three dimensional conversation you had with the girl, rather than email or text. So we’ll proceed from that premise.

First, I like the fake name game. That’s a great way to reframe a social faux pas like forgetting a girl’s name, and it incorporates a pared-down form of role-playing which is catnip to girls.

Second, your flirtation skills are very good. You know how to keep a convo rolling with light, witty banter. But all light all witty banter soon makes Jack an unsexy, entertainment monkey. Flirty talk is like starring in a sitcom: you gotta shoot for going out on top, otherwise all anyone will remember about you is your crappy last couple of seasons where you spent your episodes trying too hard to recapture your old glory.

Do you know where you blew it? Right after she asked “how do you like to be called?”, and you replied by continuing along the playful path you were already skipping happily down. Her personal question about your name (a major IOI from a girl, don’t forget) was your cue to get real with her for a minute. Girls love flirting, but they love it even more when a man knows how and when to segue from innocuous flirting to charged sexual energy. Had you dropped the jokes and your smile, replaced them with a steady gaze and serious expression, you would have stood a better chance at moving your conversation onto more fertile ground.

A lot of guys make your mistake; they get excited when they see the positive reaction and laughs that their playfulness elicits in a girl, and they do as men do — if some playfulness is good, then more must be better! But girls don’t think like men. Girls love unpredictability, they love being kept on their toes, and so they love a man who can turn on a dime from cocky to sexual tension.

Always keep the end goal in mind when you are flirting with a girl. Your end goal is not the elicitation of fleeting laughs or light forearm touches. It is penis in vagina. PRIMORDIAL PENIS IN COSMIC VAGINA. Never forget that. Temper your pride and your excitement at managing to keep a girl interested in a conversation with you; that giddy excitement will obscure the path to your ultimate goal by diverting you from the sequence of moves you must make, as the man, to seduce a woman into bed.

The next time you are playfully engaging a girl you want to screw, I want you to ask yourself “Is my penis in this girl’s vagina? No? Then there is more work to be done. More need to lead. No rest for the turgid.” Flirt on, flirt off, young Danielson.

Read Full Post »

Female Regret Neutralizer Lines: The Winners

How do you respond to a girl you have had sex with who now claims to have a boyfriend and wants to break it off with you? Readers happily offered many excellent suggestions to the fumbled game demonstrated in this post. A few stand-outs follow.

From reader Khall Drogo:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”

Me: “Guilty as charged”

Her: “And we’re not fucking again blablabla”

Me: “ok”

She’d be dripping wet and would beg for my cock until the day I die.

This is my favorite. I love the “guilty as charged” line. Why? Because it simultaneously passes her shit test (by not appearing apologetic or spiteful), and refrains from forcing any renewed sexual rapport that will re-trigger her anti-slut defense. “ok” is a good answer, but I prefer “right”, as it leaves more pellets in the hamster cage for the little critter to feast upon.

***

Flahute:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
Me: “You were irresistible”

Similar to the above, this instills the girl with positive feelings without ingratiation that could risk pushing her away. The trick to giving girls good feelings is to not make it seem like you’re just saying them to get back into their panties. Limiting yourself to three-word replies is a great way to restrict your range of potentially self-incriminating betatude.

***

Holden Caulfield channeling GBFM:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
GBFM: “that’s cuz u likes my lotsa cockas lolzlolzlozlolzzzzz”
Her: “Giggle”.

Haters: Don’t try this at home – The GBFM is a legend.

Maybe you’d have to be GBFM to pull this off, but it’s still better than anything a beta might spit out. Let’s look at what’s right about this reply:

Cocky? Check
Assumes the sale? Check.
Aloof and indifferent syntax? Check. The pussy is… bernankified.

***

Days of Broken Arrows:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
(10 hours later) Me: “My dog* died.”

* Substitute a family member, if necessary.

I call this “sympathy game,” and have found it’s the quickest way to de-bitch a potentially raging bitch. It switches off their bitch defenses and makes them Florence Nightingale. You can also substitute illness, as needed, just make it a good one, not the flu.

Sympathy game is a variant of vulnerability game. It’s incredibly effective, but easily abused. Too much sympathy game can kill a tingle dead. Beta males are known for leaning too heavily on sympathy game, and alpha males too little. Like Baby Bear’s porridge, you gotta get it just right.

Sympathy game delivers its biggest payload when the girl doesn’t expect it. Imagine you are a girl who has just (presumably) destroyed a man’s hopes with the IHAB excuse. You expect he will reply with some cloying request to meet again, or some spiteful put-down. Instead, he lobs the “my dog died” grenade right twixt your labia. That’s the kind of unpredictability that girls swoon for in men. It’s important to remember that the nurture instinct, while anhedonic in nature, is almost as strong in women as the hypergamy instinct. You should leverage both to your advantage.

***

chi-town explains the direction the text exchange *should* have taken, rather than the one it did:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Its informative about her need to be defensive but costly information to retrieve. The wrong conversation all together. The attitude should have been :

Her: “we are not doing that again text”
Him: “What?”
Her: “Fucking”
Him: “Oh that. What about it? ”
Her: “you and I are not fucking”.
Him: “Just that or is this a good bye?”
Her: “What do you think is going to happen?”
Him: “Upon reflection, I am certain I was not thinking ahead”

etc….

Sex is not on your mind and neither was she entirely. When it was, it wan’t about the sex….Women are along for the ride…Women are the ones who bring up sex while you change the subject. You don’t care about the outcome etc..

Her:

* why wasn’t the sex on his mind?
* wait, maybe he sees something deeper because he implies something else? But still..

Women have a subconscious mental algorithm which sole purpose is to assume that men are always angling for sex with them. Now, this algorithm serves them well because, in fact, most men *are* angling for sex with them, if the women are attractive. You can use this knee-jerk, sex-supposition female reflex against them to incredible effect: the man who does not follow the script playing out in a woman’s head is automatically more intriguing than 99% of the men she encounters in her life. This means not biting down on her “beta bait” by, for instance, asking for answers why more fucking isn’t forthcoming, or insinuating more fucking is on the table. Doing the opposite — acting like the sex wasn’t foremost on your mind, and she’s making a mountain out of a molehill — will ensure the conversation remains centered around your frame, and steadily pushing against her barricaded ego.

“The defensive couch is where pussy tingles are born. Squirt!”

Read Full Post »

Another Game Concept Vindicated By Science: Kino Escalation

Incoming! The studies providing evidence for the effectiveness of one game technique after another keep rolling in like a tsunami, washing away throbby-veined feminists and mewling omega virgins in their wake. Glorious times for face-rubbing! The latest in this lie-smashing cavalcade is scientific proof for the game concept of kino escalation.

Why Light Touching Can Double Your Chances of Getting a Date

During a conversation, a light touch can impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection, leading to more successful social interactions and even better teamwork. […]

Over the course of that day, three young and handsome French men [participating in a study] randomly approached 240 young women they spotted walking alone and propositioned each and every one of them. To each, they would utter exactly the same words: “Hello. My name’s Antoine. I just want to say that I think you’re really pretty. I have to go to work this afternoon but I wonder if you would give me your phone number. I’ll phone you later and we can have a drink together someplace.” If the woman refused, they’d say, “Too bad. It’s not my day. Have a nice afternoon.” And then they’d look for another young woman to approach. If the woman handed over her number, they’d tell her the proposition was all in the name of science, at which time, according to the scientists, most of the women laughed. The key to the experiment was this: with half the women they propositioned, the young men added a light one-second touch to the woman’s forearm. The other half received no touch.

The researchers were interested in whether the men would be more successful when they touched the women than when they didn’t. How important is touch as a social cue? Over the course of the day, the young men collected three dozen phone numbers. When they didn’t touch the women, they had a success rate of 10 percent; when they touched them, their success rate was 20 percent. That light one-second touch doubled their popularity. Why were the touched women twice as likely to agree to a date? Were they thinking, This Antoine is a good toucher—it’d probably be fun to knock down a bottle of Bordeaux with him some night at Bar de l’Océan? Probably not. But on the unconscious level, touch seems to impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection.

Raisin-sacked anti-gamers who have never left their basement hovels to try out a single game technique on a non-latex woman like to whine “Where’s the double-blind, controlled, blah blah blah scientific evidence for all these game theories?” Well, here it is, numbskulls. And there are plenty more in the archives of Le Chateau. Read them and feel your testicles descend.

Now, a number close rate increase from 10% to 20% is not huge. But keep in mind that the kino they tested was only a single, light, one-second touch on the forearm. Game theory espouses *escalating* kino, which involves increasing the frequency, duration and boldness (i.e. touching more erogenous zones on a woman) of kino throughout the seduction, gradually drawing the woman deeper into your sticky web of wonder.

Furthermore, game is a compendium of ploys, a symphony of stratagems. Kino is but one small part of the whole seduction process. If each game technique — say, negs, or DHV spikes, or body language — increases your close rate by 10%, then the sum of all game, deftly tallied, will surely increase your close rate by more than 10%.

Even a mere increase from 10% to 20% number close rate is worthy of bringing the Light of Game into your life. I think most betas would be thrilled to double their chances of scoring a random girl’s phone number.

Note the following line from the article. It’s very telling:

In fact, in studies in which the touched person was later debriefed about the experience, typically less than ­one-third of the subjects were even aware that they had been touched.

The master seducer’s game is so tight, that women will not even know they are being gamed. That’s the goal you should shoot for. If women are consciously aware of your game, you’re doing something wrong. Game isn’t a hammer to the head; it’s an electrified sensation that meanders just underneath conscious awareness, burrowing deep into the dark nooks of a woman’s hindbrain.

I don’t post these studies for the benefit of accomplished seducers who read here. They already know this stuff works, because they’re out there using it on women. They don’t need studies to tell them what they can see and hear and feel with their own senses. No, I post them primarily to get under the skin of haters. I can practically see them steam with impotent rage as they read the very thing they have claimed to want to read. I post them secondarily to illuminate fence-sitters who are open-minded to the enterprise of bedding women. But really, my first love is sadistically twisting the shiv in the loser mafia. Squeal like a pig, Gollum!

Read Full Post »

Framing Flirting

Overcoming Bias has a post up about hypocritical flattery. RH might feel a little embarrassed getting a link from this universally beloved and highly influential blog, but his post is very interesting for what it implies about successful methods of flirting that men can use to pick up women. (See what I did there?)

Humans usually have a social norm against flattery. Yes we flatter each other, and often, but we usually flatter indirectly. So just how big of a fig leaf does it take to hide flattery? Consider item #1 from a post on “the seven techniques for ingratiation and influence that are most effective in moving up the corporate ladder without looking like a kiss-ass”:

Frame flattery as likely to make the boss uncomfortable. …one manager whom we interviewed noted that he commonly prefaces flattering remarks with such phrases as “I don’t want to embarrass you but. . . ,” or “I know you won’t want me to say this but. . . ,” or “You’re going to hate me for saying this but.” (more)

Note that this approach makes the praise seem no less glowing, and it offers little reason for observers to less suspect the praise was designed to gain favor. So how could flattery without this addition be unacceptable, yet flattery without this addition be acceptable?

This example suggests that the key social norm is that you should not encourage others to flatter you. While there is a weak norm against praising others to gain their favor, the stronger norm is against your explicitly rewarding others for praising you. So by directly claiming that someone is not encouraging you to praise them, you declare them innocent of violating the key social norm against encouraging flattery from others.

The key to effectively flattering your boss (or any higher status person who could be useful to you) is to clear him of suspicions that he may be encouraging the flattery. Similarly, the key to effectively flirting with a girl is to clear her of suspicions that she may be encouraging your come-on.

Girls know better, of course, that when they pretty up their faces and flaunt their bodies they are encouraging come-ons from men, and hopefully the right kinds of men. But that doesn’t mean they want to be reminded of that grimy little fact about their natures.

Girls are very sensitive to being thought easy or slutty (and with good psychosexual reason). Cloying flirtations that are tacitly sexual run the risk of triggering a girl’s anti-slut defense. There is also the quirk of the female hindbrain that she values, admires and, yes, feels more physical attraction for the man who does not make himself too readily available. Chicks dig chasing aloof alphas. A man’s conspicuously flirtatious proposition is more likely to lower his value than raise it.

Thus, the best flirting is a type of anti-flirting; flirting without directly signaling that you are flirting. Or without signaling that sex is on your mind.

A few examples:

“I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, but you look like someone who’d be cool to talk to.”

“I don’t consider myself in the market, but if I was, I’d say you’re kind of cute.”

“Why is it every time I just want to say something nice to a girl, like that your eyes are… unique, she thinks I want to have sex with her?”

“I hope you don’t think this is a come-on, but you have a certain grace about you.”

“Don’t be too embarrassed that I’m flirting with you right now. They’re just words.”

The idea behind these examples is that you disarm a woman’s inclination to pigeonhole you as a man angling for her sex. Once the outer labia force field is disarmed, a woman’s inner labia defenses are easily pried, and it’s a small matter to later “change your mind” about her.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of flattery flirting. There are better ways to flirt that don’t require the egregious use of compliments or greasy innuendo. But if you do like to go direct with your flirting, then framing your flattery like the examples above will improve the reactions you get from women. Especially very beautiful women who are used to “suffering” direct and insinuated solicitations from men.

Read Full Post »

How Not To Frame A Text Exchange With A Sexually Regretful Girl

The reader from yesterday’s post who wanted to know how to parry a girl he banged who dumped the “I have a boyfriend” excuse on him, has responded with a follow-up.

I replied before I read any of the advice on here. For those who are interested, here is the resulting conversation. I went, uh, a little too raunchy and was too eager. I thought she’d be into it after how she was in bed. Good lessons for the future when it might matter.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times
(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4
(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

[in the future, I should just stop here and say nothing / right / huh?. But I felt like I was doing good so I ran for it and fumbled the ball]

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation
(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Unfortunately, the reader did not have the benefit of the advice found on this blog when he attempted to re-game this cheating slut (by her own words). If he had, I’m convinced the girl would have acted more positively, and another bang would have been in the cards. Now, I doubt it will ever happen with her.

First, let me remind the reader that it takes at least three vigorous bangs to oxytocinally bond the typical urban slut to his cock and only his cock. And the sluttier the girl, the more bangs will be required before she is entranced by your testicular essence. Only 18 year old virgins and desperate fatties bond sufficiently on the first bang, unless you are a super alpha, in which case the merest eddy of your hot breath on any woman’s neck will be enough to spoil her for all other men.

It seems obvious now that this girl was deep into anti-slut defensive territory, and fearful of her reputation. When the reader assumed her further acquiescent defilement he only pushed her more into her turtle shell. Let’s break this exchange down.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt

I think she bit through his reply to the juicy, sour grapes center. And of course, she savored it:

(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Interestingly, she responded with TWO texts in a row, the second of which was her qualifying her desirability to him, a glaring admission of insecurity. This is not the norm from girls who really want nothing more to do with a guy. Typically, one shutdown text, and then radio silence is what you’ll get from girls who feel nothing but indifference. The reader still had a shot at this point.

(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4

She was looking for some signs of emotional connection from him to ease her feelings of sluttiness, but instead she got more x-rated porn. Consequently:

(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

This is what a woman’s dashed hopes look like in SMS. This is a woman’s disappointment in text. She left the door open for him, but he did not properly read her signals, and the result was her pussy lips snapping shut for real. I’m fairly sure now that this girl was down for more bangs if he had played his game right.

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation

He’s digging his hole deeper.

(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Aaaaaand…… fin.

I would like to point something out. Notice how her text replies started somewhat lengthy and ended up short and succinct. This is the inevitable progression of a girl who is losing interest. Use this as a general rule of thumb: the longer a girl’s texts, emails or conversations carry on, the more her interest in you is growing. Womanly bloviating = good. Cunty curtness = bad.

The evidence suggests that this girl was, contrary to her IHAB excuse, down to fuck again. Waltzing through the first fuck door is the hardest. It should get easier once you are seducing DTFA girls. She entered the text convo leaving windows open for the reader to sneak in like a ninja. He fumbled at the sill and fell into a holly bush. She left the convo with the windows locked tight.

Suggestions have already been made how this reader should have replied to the IHAB excuse, but that was before we all had the actual follow-up to examine. Now that the reader has gifted us with the real life follow-up, it’s time for the floor to have a go at it. Is your interpretation of this text massacre different than mine? How would you have replied to this girl? Winners with the tightest game announced later in the week.

Read Full Post »